SCP Staff Prove They Are Incapable of Laughing at Themselves & Intolerant of Being Laughed At
NEWS/OPINION — A deep dive of SCP-DISC-J’s page comments in pictures.
“Staff getting rid of this article would almost certainly be a terrible idea for the same reason that the article was made in the first place. You’re free to dislike it but as soon as you use your authority to silence critique (or appear to be doing so) you are crossing a line. Please consider that before taking any action (the fact that this thread exists at all is already rubbing up against that point).”
— Gekkoguy
“I find the fact that this discussion is happening at all to be far worse a concern than anything the article itself could pose to staff. -J isn’t a precisely popular category of articles, and the only thing this thread is achieving is paralleling the Streisand effect.
I understand that there is a concern about implying that staff would tell someone to kill themselves, which is more than fair, but it worries me that there isn’t a concern about the precedent a removal of this article would set. It’s implicitly giving staff the right to remove content that they consider to be offensive.
Regardless of one’s opinion of SCP staff, that is not any sort of power a group of authority should have. It would be much different if the jokes were directed at one person in particular rather than the entire group of staff.”
Recently, we discussed in excruciating detail the balding sense of humor at SCP, how it is coupled with a hyper-sensitivity to anything potentially offensive, and how this will inevitably cripple writing at the site; first in the -Js and then in the MainList articles. We also discussed how this plus an idolization of the self conjoin to form a pseudo-fundamentalist religion on the SCP Wiki that will intensify the demands for in-group demonstration and compliance (which is already being seen).
At the center is a caricature of a writing site that will go to any lengths in order to mine the signaling of more & more virtue —or oppression and offense in the opposite direction — out of almost whatever is placed before them. This of course can be weaponized towards something if that something is generally disliked and that the church members there are hoping to find a rationale against. (For example, the idea that not displaying a pride logo on all pages of the Wiki is equivalent to being a transphobe.) This is a rotating caricature, as if at the center of a merry-go-round, one who is scanning their environment incessantly for such potential; the logic of whom makes one dizzy if looked at for too long.
As if on cue in the progression of observations on this blog, and as if a bad and predictable situational comedy, SCP Staff have stepped into frame in order to, it would appear, legitimize and instantiate those observations into a very firm and very public certainty.
Now here we have a story that has multiple layers of worthiness: SCP-DISC-J.
First, there is the article itself, which is very well written and, in my opinion, hilarious. Second, there is the reaction to the article, which is even more hilarious. Thirdly, there is the thread on O5 Command about it, in which the hilarity gets rabidly absurd. Fourthly, there is a second-wave reaction which takes the hilarity and obliterates it in a land mine of absurdity after being stepped on by an unaware Staff.
Almarduk skillfully casts this as a three-part play in their Confic Magazine article on the topic. The dismantling is complete, but what is not gone into in great detail are the comments to SCP-DISC-J, some of which I have preserved here. Additionally, we will get into the specific moments in the O5 Command thread where the mask of decency slips and Staff shows what they truly are.
This is a lot to get through. Thankfully, a picture says 1,000 words, so we are going to go through this story by way of some screenshots. As it turns out though, it takes more than 1,000 words per screenshot to fully pronounce all the riches of hilarity and self-depreciation that SCP users led by Staff create in response to SCP-DISC-J, so I’ll supplement them slightly as we go. The reader is encouraged to familiarize themself with the article.
I’d wager the author has pretty intimate experience with Disc and general Staff proceedings. There’s an insight in SCP-DISC-J that is just too spot on. My favorite parts of the satire are when various O5 members go on mental health leave, and immediately say they were just kidding about retiring. Classic.
Interestingly, the article got off to a good start and was rated in the positives. But then a typical thing at SCP happened; someone remembered the potential of their religion and their penchant of throwing overused words like “problematic” around; words that unfortunately don’t mean much anymore due to overuse. SCP decided to force something problematic upon SCP-DISC-J to justify its removal. Once higher moral ground (if you can call it that) was revealed, the whole site followed suit, conformed, and cozied up to the popular, most-virtue/oppression-yielding narrative imaginable.
There was a joke that was about how an O5 member had a repressed interest in wearing lipstick. This was labeled as “transmisogyny”. The mental acrobatics it takes to see this character’s situation as insulting and offensive, — outright hateful of you ask some in the comment section — are astounding. There isn’t anything “trans” about this, it goes only so far as experimenting with makeup, and isolated to the lips at that. Furthermore, to interpret this joke as transmisogyny, one would necessarily have to equate lipstick with the female gender, which is a progressive no-no and is a misstep by the very terms of (attempted) anti-oppressive thinking. Let’s break this down: Because a man finds an attraction to putting on lipstick, then he is necessarily a she, and in denial about that? What’s more, he is thereby and necessarily denying the wholesale inclination of every part of his body — not just his lips — to change genders to female? So a woman’s paste-decorated lips defines their total femininity?
That’s the transmisogyny. That’s the regressive and binary-pigenholing thinking, if anything here is remotely inappropriate. It reinforces the idea that there are just two genders and that they are defined by cultural products that are forced upon the traditional casting of those two.
Ignoring this, why can’t we as trans-supporting people see this as the prolonged baby steps for what is doubtless a heavy, protracted, and emotionally difficult transformation, and instead aim to encourage the character here? The reaction seems to be one that will only accept total and complete abdication to the political extremes at hand and nothing less; the apparent resistance of the character to go full trans at the behest of a conflicting lipstick fetish is auto-magnetized as politically shameful because it doesn’t go far enough with the gender implications confusingly read into it. Why in the world would we condemn the person to displaying transphobic behavior? The argument is essentially that they haven’t transitioned quickly enough.
All of these reasonable alternatives are ignored in favor of causing a scene. Why? Because SCP can, and it serves their most immediate purposes of cocooning themselves from any potential challenge to their politics.
After this manufactured offense was conjured up, as Almarduk’s article very elegantly frames, the article started to tank. Amazing. People who had previously praised it and rated it positively changed their minds and sympathized with the manufactured and phony outrage, feigning an alibi of careless first-go reading. It is as if a massive lobotomy was instantly performed on any potential critical thought regarding the situation, the herd here clearly reacting to the equivalent of an alarm in an almost Pavlovian manner. The tension created in the battle between rational thought and a religious herd mentality is seen most clearly in this, incredible comment:
But I’m rambling; let’s get into the pictures and let them tell the story, shall we?
The highlighted part is important because it conveys a lie that makes the point of SCP-DISC-J. SCP Staff would most assuredly not appreciate or respect anything more refined in the way of criticism than this satire. On site (and sometimes off-site), there is no such thing as “legitimate criticism of the highly flawed staff” outside an allotted leash for it (i.e. Town Halls). This very blog, Confic Magazine, and the Confic Wiki are all less jokey, and well-sourced criticisms of Staff in their own ways, and all three were attempted to be deplatformed and silenced (by unknown actors of course).
But to demonstrate in the here-and-now, or rather, the there-and-then of SCP-DISC-J:
Good reply from MacLeod, but fat chance that anyone will be giving any benefit of any doubt here; the name of the game is interpreting it in as uncharitable means as possible to gain moral leverage. The highlighted part is also important because this is the motte-and-bailey fallacy that Staff use in a regular manipulation; when they are not being mocked, they are the very important arbiters of the SCP Wiki and “the only reason why the site still exists”; but when they are being criticized (for missteps in such an important role no less), they are “just unpaid volunteers doing their best to try and balance it with IRL stuff.” Staff move between these two positions so much, it might as well be dancing.
The astute observer will notice that many people change their original and favorable opinions at around the time of UraniumEmpire’s post, around 22:00 on Sep 15th, clearly indicating that this comment was the tipping point. Prior to this, the on-site discussion thread of the O5 command thread was busy with user comments mainly defending the article as something that should be left alone. Until, that is, the exact time of this post, where all discussion stops for 6 hours and only picks up when SCP-DISC-J is deleted, by then praising the deletion:
What is any one kid at SCP to a herd of groupthink? At SCP, one can’t help but go in the direction of least resistance once the desperately progressive sensitivities are ripped out of the material like entrails to read future signs from. Participation demands a sacrifice, and unfortunately in this and many other such cases, the sacrifice is independent thought.
Once the accusation was summoned, it was a point of no return and a 30+ article swimming upstream was collapsed in hours.
This is only to the second layer of the unintentional humor onion. Here we’re going to roll up and peel off the last two together — Staff’s first and second response to it.
To put it short, Staff made an O5 Command thread to debate whether or not they should delete the article outright for its unflattering representation of Staff. (Where have we seen this before?) Note that the O5 Thread was created 15 September at 19:13, before the article started to turn negative. This was when the article was doing well, in the positives. This is how Staff replies. The O5 was their attempt to gauge the room for an authoritarian and dictatorial move; outright censorship.
The article does a great job at angering staff; it’s more than just a general satire. It’s actually a very pointed jab targeting an already-sore and healing spot; this is why Dexanote specifically posts the O5 Thread and lets himself get carried away in his emotions. So the embarrassment for Staff is exceptionally stinging, and they feel something must be done to save face and deny the opportunity of this slap to it. All of the top staff flush into the forum. Someone literally writes the sentence: “This article is mean to the Disciplinary team.”
In the mix, someone has numerous words of clarity:
And then we see the extremes of Staff’s intelligence and spirituality duking it out. We have some remarkably inept takes:
- the fiat and attempted fiat moves of the weaker-minded and oblivious staff, now addressed as its own catastrophe and PR blunder
- the reduction of any intelligence in the actual article to the weakest strawman possible
- the dislike of staff being equivalent to the disingenuous and scarecrow complaint of “transphobia”, as if hate is the only reason why staff could be criticized
- the limitation of possible solutions to all those that favor and redeem Staff’s bruised image
- the modification of site rules in order to get rid of this article because it makes Staff look bad, pretending at the same time for it to apply equally to all “site members”
- also and at the same time, the belief that censorship should revolve around who is being offended, namely Staff (also gratuitous use of question marks as colloquial intonation devices meant to summon sympathy)
- the belief that that Staff should be protected from criticism, and the refusal of members of a responsibility and power structure to accept the potential to be criticized
- unintentional flattery of the author of SCP-DISC-J as a tactical genius
- the overt prioritization of Staff reputation above site policy and a wider representation to and of users
- the manipulation of peripheral and tangential humor in the satire into a malicious evil to justify tyrannical preferences
- the declaration of the entirety of satire dead, so that Staff can avoid recognizing how alive it is and how well it does its job here
- the unintended information conveyed in a justification for why Staff deleted the article 16 hours before the deletion timer ran out, something that they do not do for every sub -21 article in deletion.
These impressive displays of denial and weakness force the much smarter words of other staff in reply, and because this is the forum by which the accuracy of the satire will be played out publicly.
So, we have glorious moments here from other (better) Staff, such as:
- Someone has to ELI5 what satire is
- That same person points out the existence of worse, more egregious content on the site that deals with the same matters
- Admitting the success of the chess move
- Admitting the self-parody of taking it too seriously
- Reading into the bigger messages about them here
- Another quiet part out loud regarding SCPD as an official SCP Wiki/Staff territory
- Face-to-face recognition of the effects of their censorious habits
- Glorious leader Jacob Conwell steps up as new Admin and speaks the damn truth
- The hard, difficult truth of the matter
The final layer on this satire onion, and in my opinion the juiciest, is that Staff can’t stand to let the article last on the site one second longer than they have to. In a treatment that is certainly not typical of all <-21 articles on the site, SCP-DISC-J is hawked with eager and dilated pupils for that threshold, saturated in saliva by the time it comes, so that it — and more importantly, the offense that it represents to Staff — can be wiped off the face of the site. An announcement of this act punctuates the threads across the site on the matter, as if the sound of an executioner’s axe landing in an apparent victory. Everyone is now safe to resume being under control, free from hate, and are again free to retain their respect for the site, its leaders, and its just rules.
It is in this way that Staff take all of the potential maturity in response to being satirized by a master at it, methodically unwrap it, and dump it like soiled diapers all over their feet. They go into great detail as to how and why just getting rid of the article would look terrible, and then they can’t even stay themselves to let the natural course of the article play out as most all -21 and below articles do. It isn’t enough that the church of SCP’s moral authoritarianism defeated it, Staff still give it special treatment and exception.
Thus, their reaction solidifies the accuracy of the satire publicly and the genius of the anonymous author is secured in legend.
SCP-DISC-J was a checkmate that Staff moved all the pieces of, by their predictable reaction to it.
If anyone reading this doesn’t believe that the worst of Staff pretended to forget what a satirical exaggeration is and be offended by a mild suicide joke so they could uniquely target this particular piece of satire in a deep insecurity for their own flaws; if you don’t believe that Staff, one degree removed, would intentionally impale this rising article with a false flag of “transmisogyny”, knowing that they could play it unto deletion, then you have not understood the true character of SCP Staff well enough. If you understand that Staff’s reaction to this article and its deletion is the real success, then you understand why it is good satire of them and of SCP.
In the words of Harmony, ever increasing in value:
SCP has a way of taking bait that they shouldn’t. They feel, compulsively, as though the world needs their reply. This often makes matters worse for them and compounds their woes.
Oh yeah, and Staff tell people to kill themselves in #site67.
